"Green" policies are destroying this country

And why are the words " but you're not a climate scientist.... " NOT applied here to his statement ?

( Oh , I forgot , agenda / narrative and all that ..... ) .

I will make it very easy for you to understand: the Green Plan is..simply..not..going..to...work. It cannot work as the numbers don't add up. It is based on wishful thinking or Hopium if you will. Ive used the grid as a prime example. But the greens seem deliberately vague on the precise details which you absolutely need. They want to replace a working system with a faulty one. We are used to energy systems getting better. That is progress. Who in his right mind would suggest something worse? I tell you who. It's those believing in an Armageddon. A climate apocalypse. So then anything goes. The 3 monkies. And i will finally tell you something else: IF rapid climate change is happening this new system is going to make things worse, much worse. People are going to die. The Green Agenda won't be saving people. It is going to KILL people. The Greens are increasingly losing support everywhere. With all the current global problems climate change is simply not an issue except for those in the cities w a secure income and the energy ignorant who are being lied to by the msm.

I rest my case. Im done with you. You are on IGNORE.

Ps: more irony: you use the name 'electricus'. You need to school yourself on that front..

I posted a link a while back showing how far behind Eirgrid are on their 2012 transmission reinforcement plans. They are a decade behind and showing no signs of improving. This talk of 30 GW of wind by 2030 is physically impossible as we will not have the grid ready to connect them too.

The other insane part is that EU policy actually allows gas to be used as a bridging fuel until the right solutions can be found. SMRs are being developed with reactors in the 500MW range, which is perfect for our grid. Currently the largest generation unit is ~400MW so it would tie in nicely to our conventional transmission system.

The grid needs major improvements regardless of power source, but we need to get over nimbyism for that to happen, never mind nuclear generation!

SMRs as you say, are in development. Hopefully we’ll have those soon, along with fusion generation which is also in development.

Do you think we should just stop using gas in the EU? I don’t think that would be sensible right now. Using gas is a lot better than coal.

I suppose we could do nothing, continue as we are, take a chance on you being right, and hope for the best. Hopium indeed.

You correctly said the numbers don’t add up, but does progress always mean greater consumption without a thought for efficiency? If that’s the case, we’re still on a path to run out of power and resources regardless of climate changes.

The evolution of computer CPUs is a good example. Manufactures who continue to develop legacy designs are reaching their limits. The rest of the industry moves on with more efficient designs which consume less power, producing less heat with longer battery life in mobile devices,

Of course it is a viable mass transit system. Light rail is used all over the world and is a perfectly sensible form of mass transit. Doesn't need to solve every problem all on its own

The Luas works great as it is intended, a street level tram service. Anything more than 10km and the line is too long in my opinion.

Start trying to increase frequency and capacity and the model starts to falter. Just look at the constraints the current green line faces due to the short sightedness in its initial design and thinking the solution is to add longer and longer carriages. To design and build a Luas to the airport instead of Metro would be a farce and tbh, if that happens we may as well give up on any aspirations of having a modern public transport system.

Also regarding the the 5:1 split in funding, I've no problem with that, as long as road funding stays the same. The idea you can reduce spending money on roads as the population heads to 6m is laughable.

Temporary, you make it sound like putting up some crowd control fencing or hoarding. Is this really how you think large scale public infrastructure should be implemented.

There would be nothing cheap or temporary about it and would be a complete waste of public money.

Even quicker, improve the bus service using the same space a LUAS would require but without requiring rail or wiring, just add sheltered stops, contactless payment, and the necessary infrastructure to make use of the 129 electric buses mothballed by TFI since last year.

In the meantime get on with building a coherent and connected metro system like other cities have had for decades. Forgot about the piecemeal line here, line there, connect later nonsense.

This is usually the consequence of poor planning and bad design.

Look, it no longer matters whether the science is right or wrong. It only matters whether a) anything effective can be done to offset the damage at this point and b) whether the cost of this action, socially and economically, is worse than the problem.

My personal opinion is that a) no probably not and b) yes it would be.

And so, the World needs to focus on two things. a) dealing with the effects b) thinking about the long term elimination of commoditised fossil fuel and replacing it globally with local renewable energy and getting rid of disposable crap.

Other than that, the genie is not going back in the bottle. Humanity will not de-innovate. People will not give up cars and planes and so cars and planes need to be fuelled sustainably and that transition is already underway.

If you want to be a real green promoter, a real agent of change; deal with the possible and practical, not the pie in the sky stuff and the imposition of the social and economic penalties on those least able to bear them. Because if you don't bring ordinary people along with you, all over the World, they will come for you and burn you out.

In London, for example, ULEZ is going to be this decade's poll tax. It is going to end in social disorder. It doesn't matter if a majority agree to it, a large enough majority can and will cause chaos over it. Because they poorest paid have the oldest cars and the least ability to pay this penalty.

And that demonstrates the burden of measures all over the World and why the platitudes of the likes of António Guterres will fall on deaf ears.

Again you are refusing to answer what I asked and where did I say it made no sense to invest in public transport ?

It is not the state`s responsibilty to spend taxpayers money to grant everyone their wish list. The state`s responsibility is to spend it where it will, to use that Americans expression "Get the best bang for your buck"

I have no problem with the report compilers. If anything I compliment them on their honesty. But it is difficult to believe they were not handed a wish list on rail and told to come up with a plan for it`s entirety. And that as what they did, but were honest enough to include the cost and point out that even after spending €35 Bn. it would make no discernible difference on moving freight or passenger numbers away from road usage.

Had the compilers of this report been left to their own devices they would most likely have identified areas where rail would have given that "bang for the buck". Navan being one as has been mentioned here, but when you see the likes of a Letterkenny to Derry rail link costing €3.5 Bn as well that makes absolutely no logical sense using any metric, (and one you keep avoiding to make any justification for), then it makes the whole report nothing other than an uneconomical unviable wish list.

You say this plan is one that has the backing of all parties not just the Green Party, but from Varadkar`s comment when first seeing it and Ryan`s reaction after presenting it to cabinet, then it`s difficult to see it.

This report, similar to the report on energy security, was commissioned by Ryan`s department where both sets of compilers were hamstrung by The Irish Green Party wish list from day one. For the energy security report, no consideration was allowed for a LNG land based terminal, but in fairness to Cambridge Economic Policy Associates they pointed out that for energy security we should be able to avail of LNG, and to get around the remit they were given went with floating LNG terminals.

So no, the wish list fingerprints all over this rail report and the energy security report are no other government party`s other that those of Ryan and the Irish Green Party.

1: any electricity system needs to be reliable, stable and affordable. 2: it needs both a base load and peak load capacity. Wind and solar might be in a mix (coupled w battery tech) but point 2 remains paramount. So, it is an added energy source not a replacement. Gas is better than oil which is better than coal or peat. But, LNG needs to be imported and is costly (especially in a market where everybody wants/needs it). Nitrogen and especially Green Nitrogen gas is even more lossy and expensive so not worthwhile at all. Nuclear is the obvious extra card in the deck but is long term and needs state sponsorship. Probably not ideal for little Ireland.

Then we come to point 3 which is coupled w point 1: a reliable LONG TERM strategy. That would be one in which multiple sources and variability can cater for local and national needs. The key word is flexibility. Another one is connectivity. Both factors need to be met.

The longer you think about it the more you come to the conclusion that solar and wind are simply not a solution to ANYTHING. It can be added AFTER everything else has been settled, certainly not BEFORE. The Greens dont get or want that.

You might find it hilarious but the Green party sits on top of the Green Agenda pyramid and has been able to infect other parties with their ideology which then led to green policies which now meet the real world with a bang. Not only that, the Green party has many affiliates in the world who are determined to enforce zero Co2 emissions by 2050 plus the 2030 agenda rolled out en masse. This is increasingly seen by people as the road to destruction. To use Biden's words in my own way:' the climate change POLICIES are a clear and present danger'. The pushback is well on its way although you wouldnt think so by following the msm.

The Green Party will end up on the scrapheap of history. The other parties are removing their involvement bit by bit. Maybe they can salvage something by making mr Higgins top dog and hope for a feelgood factor.